MEASUREMENT,
THE BRIDGE BETWEEN
THE HARD AND
SOFT SIDES
Arthur M. Schneiderman
V isit Milliken and Company, a
1989 winner of the Malcolm
vice president of quality and pro-
ductivity improvement at Analog
Get the hard stuff right and much
of the soft staff will take care of
Baldrige National Quality Award, Devices, Inc.,2 I had also worked itself.
and one of the things you will extensively in the development and
notice is the slogans on the walls. deployment of nonfinancial per-
One in particular is eye-catching: formance metrics3 and the use of the In this article, several examples will
first balanced scorecard for their be used on how quantitative mea-
“The hard stuff is easy, the soft stuff management.4 My view was, and to sures stimulate positive behavioral
is hard and the soft stuff is more a great extent still is: changes in both individuals and
important than the hard stuff.”
organizations. However, before
proceeding, some definitions are in
To an admitted hard-sider, this one EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
order.
seemed dead wrong.
Both process and organizational
Several years earlier, I had devel-
learning can be measured by looking DEFINITIONS
at the improvement half-life and its
oped the half-life metric as a driver Generally, when people talk about
rate of change.
of the improvement process.1 As the hard stuff, they are in the
These metrics can be used to draw process view. Included here are
ARTHUR M. SCHNEIDERMAN is organizational and individual attention
process mapping, measures and
an independent consultant on process to the need for better approaches to
management. From 1986 to 1993 he metrics, improvement methodolo-
process improvement.
was vice president of quality and gies, and tools.
productivity improvement at Analog Most information at the boundary In contrast, the soft stuff reflects
Devices, Inc. where he facilitated the between hard and soft sides of the people view and is more
Quality Steering Council and chaired improvement is in the form of
the Total Quality Management concerned with motivation, reward
language rather than numerical data. and recognition, team dynamics,
Implementation Council. Schneiderman
has served on the Malcolm Baldrige Management, logic, and analytic and vision and mission..
National Quality Award as senior
practices can expand to provide tools Although these definitions paint
examiner and the Conference Board’s
US Quality Council II. He is located in for understanding this alpha-numeric the two views as black and white,
Boxford, Massachusetts and can be interface in terms of degrees of they are simply different aspects of
reached at (978) 352-2031 or at freedom rather than simple true or a total system for improvement.
art@schneiderman.com. false rigidities.
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
14
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
life? Research showed that it
MEASUREMENT PROCESS AND depended on process complexity,
ORGANIZATIONAL For any given process the which in turn had two dimensions:
LEARNING organizational
half-life is constant over a
technical
If the process view of an organiza- significant range or
tion is taken, it is as the sum of a
number of interconnected processes.
improvement. This dependency was captured in a
Each of these processes has cus-
three-by-three matrix that had
tomers and suppliers. The half-life values ranging from one
customers have requirements, and month for low organizational and
organizations strive to match the
technical complexity processes to
K is the change in knowledge, t twenty-two months for high ones. 6
process output to these
is the time interval, L is the rate of Associated with any given improve-
requirements. Results metrics
learning, and F is the rate of ment process is its own half-life matrix.
measure how well the organization
forgetting. L-F can be called the net Pre-TQM, industrial engineers were
perform this.
rate of learning, which we always relied upon to design and improve our
Internal to the process are a few
hope is positive. processes. The workers job was to fol-
key variables that drive its output.
As process knowledge increases, low the standard operating procedures
In general, they are invisible to the
the gap between the processes‟ (SOP) developed by these engineers.
processes‟ customers. Measurement
inherent capabilities and actual TQM empowered the process execu-
of these variables produces a set of
outputs will decrease. Inherent tors not only to follow the procedures,
process metrics. In mathematical capabilities represent the ultimate but also to spend a portion of their time
terms, results metrics are the depen- limit the process can achieve with- improving them. This change in
dent variables and process metrics out significant capital investment. improvement process has led to a ten-
are the independent variables asso- Consequently, any results metric fold reduction in improvement half-
ciated with a process. should also decrease, defined as a lives and commensurate increase in the
Process knowledge is the set of measure of that gap. Therefore, the net rate of process learning.
tangible and intangible operating rate of change of a results metric is Transforming intangible into
procedures used to convert the a function of net process learning. tangible knowledge will greatly
inputs to outputs. If knowledge is Conversely, the rate of change of a
reduce process forgetting while net-
constant (i.e. operating procedures results metric is itself a measure of
works and best practices databases
unchanging), and the process vari- net process learning.
will accelerate problem solving.
ables are stable, then the output of A little over a decade ago, I dis-
There does not appear to be an
the process will also be stable, sub- covered that the use of total quality
accepted definition of organiza-
ject only to statistically predictable management (TQM) tools and
tional learning. The following is
variability. This phenomenon is the methods produced a constant rate of
offered:
purview of statistical process improvement which I called the
control (SPC). improvement half-life.5 For a typical
Organizational learning is the
Process improvement requires process, the half-life for
improvement was nine months. This acquisition, application, and mas-
new knowledge that manifests itself
meant that the gap between current tery, of new tools and methods
in changed operating procedures.
performance and the ultimate that allow more rapid improve-
This change in knowledge is called
process capability could be cut in ment of those processes whose
learning. Note also that process
half in nine months. The remaining improvement is critical to the
knowledge can be lost. For
gap could be cut in half in an success of the organization.
example, undocumented procedures
that rest in volatile human memory additional nine months. Because the
can be lost when the process half-life is a measure of rate of
In other words, the half-life is a
executors move on to other improvement, it is also a metric of
results metric of the improvement
assignments. This loss of net process learning.
process. As the improvement process
knowledge is called forgetting. This For any given process the half- itself is improved, we expect to see
can be expressed mathematically as: life is constant over a significant half-lives decrease for a given level
ΔK range of improvement. What then of process complexity. The rate of
LF determines the value of the half-
Δt change of process half-life, at con-
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
15
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
stant process complexity is a metric “Turbo TQM,” assigns team mem-
of organizational (versus process) People’s time is not always bers on a half- or full-time basis.
learning. Mathematically, it can be the bottleneck in the This can significantly accelerate the
shown as: improvement process. revolutions per month (RPM) of the
Often data collection is improvement cycle and lead to
Lp t½ limited by the cycle time of effectively shorter half-lives. Note
t the process itself.
Lo ½
that people‟s time is not always the
bottleneck in the improvement
t complexity
process. Often data collection is
Lp is the process learning metric, limited by the cycle time of the
Lo is the organizational learning process itself.
metric, and t½ is the process The following section examines a
development of new ones are the
improvement half-life. Lo is in fact real example in which a sustained
keys to organizational learning.
the half-life for the improvement gap between actual and expected
Why does the half-life model
process itself. work? Most applications of the half-life, combined with a bit of
Consider for example, a real TQM improvement methodology interdivisional competition, was the
situation7 where an organization, rely on taking a large problem and key in turning a TQM skeptic into a
new to TQM, is working on breaking it up into smaller pieces. dedicated champion.
reducing late shipments in their Typically, the biggest piece will
order fulfillment process. The represent 30 to 50 percent of the
complexity of their process is such entire problem, Once identified, the AN EXAMPLE
that we would expect a twelve- improvement team determines a In 1987, Analog Devices estab-
month half-life. corrective action, implements it, and lished and openly published a set of
However, being new to the TQM modifies the operating procedures, nonfinancial performance goals as
to reflect the improved process. part of its five-year strategic plan.9
improvement methodology, their
It then turns to the next biggest The half-life method, customer
initial half-life is forty months. As
piece, which will again represent input, and competitor analysis were
they master this methodology, the 30-50 percent of the remaining
half-life drops continuously and used to set these goals. The half-life
problem. This never-ending cycle
approaches the twelve-month level. was also used to set intermediate
constantly works to close the gap
The half-life of their half-life curve quarterly goals and to deploy these
between current performance and
goals to each of our divisions as part
is nine months. Their Lo is nine ultimate process capability. If the
of our annual planning process.
months and their eventual Lp will be process is capable of satisfying
Although a one-page summary that
twelve months. Once an organiza- customer requirements, then that
gap will also be narrowing. If it is combined these with the key
tion has mastered a given
not, then a new process must be financial goals was initially referred
improvement methodology, all new
designed which has the capability of to as the “Quarterly Performance
improvement efforts are expected to
meeting these requirements. Audit, “ it quickly became known as
start at close to the appropriate the “Scorecard.”
As a rule of thumb, a team will
half-life for that process. This At that time Analog had a highly
take three to five months to
model suggests that Lo will vary decentralized organization and each
complete each improvement cycle.
significantly over time, as new Therefore, a roughly 40 percent division was left to determine on
paradigms are invented, embraced, improvement in four months their own how to achieve their
and mastered, by the organization. translates into a half-life of about scorecard goals. At most divisions,
The toolsets that enable process five months. A more complex a staff member was assigned
learning vary with process process has more and therefore responsibility for one of the metrics
complexity.8 For example, the 7-QC smaller pieces and takes more time on the scorecard.
tools, the 7-MP tools, and per cycle, hence a longer half-life. At our largest division, Joe, the
simulation modeling, span the range Improvement activities usually operations manager, was assigned
from low to high complexity. account for two to four hours per responsibility for the on-time
Mastery of existing toolsets and the week of team activity. To accelerate delivery metric.
the rate, Carrier Corporation‟s
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
16
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
As my office was located at that EXHIBIT 1
facility, and my boss (the COO) Late Shipments by Division*
was acting general manager, I was
asked to sit in on all of the staff DIV A DIV B DIV C DIV D DIV E Corporate
Monthly Perc ent of Lines Shipped Late
100
meetings. Joe was a very proud and,
to some extent, autocratic manager.
His initial reaction to a very
aggressive improvement goal was
“if that level of performance could
be achieved, we would already be 10
there ... it just can‟t be done.” Over
time, the division‟s performance did
not improve. My help was declined.
Pressure mounted and everyone was
frustrated, from the CEO down. 1
One of the displays that I used to 14 14 N/S N/S N/A 34
track performance against plan was Half-life (months)
*See reference 3
the chart shown in Exhibit 1.10 I
posted this chart on the door to my Joe held in his staff meeting able, and suggested alternative
office. If a division had elected to conference room, Joe took his solutions. Often in putting the case
use TQM to improve their delivery, normal seat at the head of the table. together, the team would see the
I also posted the starting date and a Needless to say the team meeting situation more clearly and reach
Pareto Chart (rank ordered bar took on the tone of a staff meeting. consensus on its own.
chart) of causes of lateness as Several of the participants said Analog Devices practiced a
identified by their QIP (Quality nothing during the whole meeting. flavor of a seven-step improvement
Improvement Process) team. After a With a little coaching, the next method used widely in Japan.11 The
few months, it became apparent that meeting was in a different room and last step, step seven, is called
those divisions that were using QIP Joe made sure that he sat at the “reflection.” Here the team reflects
teams were improving while the middle of the table. Several months on its team experiences, prepares for
others were not. People would come its management presentation
later, Joe turned over the team
by my office and look at the charts (reward and recognition), and plans
leader position to his manager of
on a regular basis. for is next improvement cycle. In
production planning and changed
One night, Joe passed my office reflecting, the team addresses the
his role to team sponsor.
questions, “What went well?” and
on his way out, returned, and came There were many occasions in
“What were our major weak-
in. He looked at the charts and then which finger pointing was
nesses?”
turned to me and said, “Art, I think redirected to data collection and Typical answers to the first
you‟re calling me a bad manager.” analysis. As the team became more question might be, “Everyone
Two hours later Joe agreed to start a familiar with the TQM tools and participated,” “Everyone met his or
QIP team and I agreed to be its methodologies, behaviors changed. her commitments,” and “Larry
facilitator. Confronted with data Knowing that hip-shooting would pitched in to help Sue when she was
that showed other similar divisions no longer work, team members out sick.” Identified weaknesses
were achieving results using TQM, brought data to meetings in support might include, “We spent too long
Joe‟s skepticism softened. of their positions. collecting data,” “We didn‟t always
As team facilitator, I did have to Functional issues were resolved end our meetings with clear action
overcome many soft issues. For using an “elevation process.” If the items,” “I wish we had someone
example, the team consisted of Joe team could not resolve the issue on from accounting on the team.”
(as the team leader, of course) and its own, a case was put together that Too often, these types of
included several of his direct described the issue, provided evaluations are done in an open loop
reports. At our first meeting, which whatever relevant data was avail- fashion. Individual performance
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
17
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
appraisals rarely start with the pre-
Sean: “OK, Joe, how are you
vious cycle‟s findings and next
doing it. Stretching the lead
steps. Our teams were encouraged, It is the hard stuff that times? Building inventory?”
as part of their training, to review solves problems; the soft
their previous reflections at both the stuff is an important Joe: “No, no ... This QIP stuff
really works.”
start and end of each improvement enabler.
cycle. By reviewing them at the
beginning, they could plan steps to The following week, Sean called to
address their identified weaknesses; ask if I could drop by on my next
at the end, they could see how well visit. By the way, they are
they did. In this way, the reflection (CEO) and Tom Malone (president) represented in Exhibit 1 as divisions
step became closed-loop. This attend every rally, and give out the A and B.
closure greatly enhanced the teams A few years later, management
prizes at their conclusion.
learning. decided, for very complex reasons,
While the QC Circle conferences
to set a flat annual goal. Joe came to
This self-diagnosis is included in have perhaps an 80/20 focus on my office for an explanation. He
the teams‟ presentations to learning versus celebrating, the said, “Art, with no improvement
management, which addresses each sharing rallies have the converse. goal, I don‟t have any job.” The
of the seven steps. The collective Which is right? That depends on the greatest champions are converted
experience of the QIP teams current needs of the organization, a skeptics, and in this case, it all
provides the fact base that very important soft-side decision. started with data.
management can use, for example, Here again, data from the team
in setting priorities in TQM training reflections and employee surveys FUZZY LOGIC
(e.g. expanding training in data can provide the basis for the Success is like a giant magnet. It
collection and analysis or adding a decision. draws people from all corners of the
module on meeting management). organization, some of whom have
made little or no contribution to that
Analog Devices held periodic Solution Versus Enabler
corporate wide and divisional “QIP success. At the first sign of trouble
This example shows that the soft they are the ones who declare that
Fests” where teams joined together stuff can emerge as countermea- they have the solution. This
to celebrate their success and share sures to real problems teams happened at Analog when several
their experiences. In designing these experience in doing the hard stuff. It unrelated situations in 1989
conferences, two different models is the hard stuff that solves triggered a reversal in performance
were examined. problems; the soft stuff is an at nearly all divisions. Delivery
important enabler. Too often, the started to get worse.
QC Circles and Sharing soft stuff is approached as an end in A newly hired corporate support
Rallies itself. Consequently, it does not staff manager took the position that
In Japan, there are almost daily QC contribute to accelerated learning our setback was the result of a lack
Circle conferences held in various of company vision and mission
and improved organizational
statements, too many teams, and the
parts of the country. Teams give performance.
need for facilitator and teamwork
very structured and standardized As an epilogue to this example,
training. When asked for data to
fifteen-minute Presentations, the Joe‟s division became the most support her position, she answered
main objective of which is to share rapidly improving division at “I don‟t need data, this is my area of
best practices in the use or the Analog. In fact, they were right on expertise.”
seven-step improvement methodol- their annual half-life based goal Since Analog was still in the
ogy. line. Standing at the bar at one of early stages of its quality journey,
At Milliken & Company, they the company‟s manufacturing confusion over what to do next ran
have been holding quarterly council meetings, I overheard the rampant. In my view, following her
“sharing rallies” for fifteen years. following conversation between Joe recommendations would violate the
Teams are allowed five minutes for and Sean, his counterpart at a sister very principles that the company
their presentations and the division that had made a quick start was trying to inculcate in the
participants get to vote on the but had plateaued for the past organization; Analog would be
“best” presentation. Roger Milliken several months: leaping from problem to solution
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
18
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
without collecting data and
EXHIBIT 2
identifying the root cause. To act on
Example of Survey Res ults
her advice would be setting the
worst possible example.
Progress to Date
On the other hand, I did not
unweighted
know the answer either. It was only weighted
several years later, when Sterman,
Reppening, and Kofman built a
System Dynamics based computer
Division
simulation model of the Analog
Devices experience, that I was able
to see through the complexity of the
situation and understand the real
Corporat e Wide
root causes.12 (Their findings are
discussed later in this article.)
What I chose to do was to go to
those people in the organization
who should have the best
knowledge of the situation: the 0 1 2 3 4 5
division general managers. wors e neutral better
I constructed a survey that had a What have we done well? What have we done poorly?
mix of questions some of which “…selected one thing to focus on: “…have not culturally ingrained the
could be answered on a quantitative on-time delivery, and achieved a QIP philosophy”…“we haven’t built
meaningful win…” excitement among the GM’s”…“we
scale (0 to 5) and others in words. don’t have enough QIP leaders in
Questions included the following: the division staff…”
“…identified clear priorities, established “…divisions really don’t understand
How do you rate overall QIP the metrics, and kept them very visible
… (this) has led to GM buy-in to QIP…”
how customer’s needs have
changed…”
progress to date?
“…very rapid and broad acceptance
What have we done well? of QIP…” “…failed to define QIP. We think QIP is
QIP teams, it’s a subset of TQC, but
What have we done poorly?
you’re now telling me that it’s the same
as TQC. That was never explained to us…”
What problems should we
anticipate? anonymity, but nearly all declined. numerical data did not dig deeply
Detailed notes were taken and all enough, while the quotes provided
How do you rate quotes were confirmed. context, but as language data, could
understanding of QIP at your not be analyzed ... or could they?
The results were presented in a
division? Company wide? In 1965, Lofti Zadeh “invented”
written report to the corporatewide
How valuable have the QIP Council. Exhibit 2 is a typical a new approach for analyzing complex
systems called “fuzzy logic.” The science
following been in driving QIP? excerpt taken from that report. The
of fuzzy logic legitimizes the modeling of
chart shows the GM‟s perception of
Half-life concept systems where truth takes on degrees and
the total company as well as their
Scorecard information can be in linguistic form.
division‟s progress to date. Also Although Zadeh is credited with the
General Manager Council
shown are the division invention of fuzzy logic, many
meeting updates
revenue-weighted average and the applications predate his discovery.
Bonus adder (based on nonfi-
range of responses (double-ended System Dynamics, the basis of systems
nancial metrics) thinking, is a form of fuzzy logic that had
arrows). The quotes were used to
Others its origins in the work of Jay Forester in
add further depth of meaning to the
the 1950‟s.13 Also, in that period, Jiro
data. The results of this traditional
Each survey was conducted on a Kawakita invented the K-J method for the
part of the survey proved interesting
one-on-one basis. They ranged from analysis of language data.14
but lacked sufficient detail to A short while after the survey
forty-five (45) to ninety (90)
produce actionable next steps and was completed, I had the
minutes. The GMs were offered
priorities. The problem was that the opportunity to extensively apply and
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
19
EXHIBIT 3
A Re sult From the General Managers Survey
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
QIP Improvement Opportunities
Performance performance on something deemed
poor ok excellent noncritical and are candidates for
vital reevaluation of allocated resources.
7 The most important area is that
9 Maintain
above the maintain band. These
Criticality to QIP Success
Improve represent areas viewed by the GMs
8 as critical to success but performing
below what they believed was
2 required. Using distance from the
important
3 band as a numerical measure of
1 need for improvement, the
following list can be created:
Re-evaluate
Maintain
unweighted Area Points
irrelevant weighted
Corporate QIP
1. CEO's Staff 4. * 8. Corp QIP function training 60
2. Corp QIP Council 5. * 9. Corp QIP training
3. Div QIP Council 6. * The General Managers 25
7. GM's The Corporate QIP
function 15
teach the method under the tutelage As another example of the use of
Total 100
of Professor Shoji Shiba. 15 Using fuzzy logic, consider the last item in
the K-J Method with the language the interview: QIP improvement
data contained in the quotations in opportunities, shown in Exhibit 3.
This matrix provided a format for This list represents the fuzzy logic
Exhibit 2, several clear hidden
evaluating the importance versus consensus view of the GMs as to
messages emerge. Although we had
performance for several groups and where improvements were most
done a good job in our tactics
individuals (items 4, 5, and 6 with needed in the QIP infrastructure.
(goals, metrics, focus on the vital
names removed to protect them) The point scores provide an
few), we had failed to create a sense
thought to be critical to the success indication of the emphasis (i.e.,
of urgency based on a compelling
business need for change and had of Analog‟s QIP efforts. resources) that should be directed
The intent was to identify toward each area. As far as next
not clearly linked our metrics to this
responsibility for determining steps, the bottom line was clear: we
need. Furthermore, our
corrective actions for our current desperately needed training in tools
self-diagnosis process had failed to
situation. It was not for assessing and methods. There was little
uncover several weaknesses in our
blame. Each GM was asked to place mention of training needs on the
organizational change system,
the identification number at the soft stuff. The GM‟s also
including training and education
appropriate location on the matrix. recognized that they were not doing
and company-wide diffusion.
Exhibit 3 is the result of all that was necessary and that the
Ideally, the corporate QIP
averaging these locations for each Corporate QIP function was not
council would have collected and
of the identification numbers. The providing them with enough
analyzed language data around the
solid points represent a straight support.
issue or theme, “What are the
average, while the open points The report to the Corporate QIP
weaknesses in our implementation
represent the division revenue Council omitted the results for the
of TQM?” With the importance
weighted average. Points lying three individuals (items 4, 5, and 6).
weighted list of answers, we could
within the band labeled maintain” These data were communicated only
have proceeded to identify and rank
reflect performance commensurate to them. It proved extremely
appropriate corrective actions and
with their criticality to the QIP valuable in highlighting issues
been better able to communicate
process. Points below this band
their rational.
would be indicative of high
regarding their roles in advancing Should sensitive surveys like this The K-J Method is an excellent
us on our TQM journey, and made be done internally or by outside team tool and yields a consensus
visible conflicts of these roles with consultants? They should be done rather than individual view. There is
their own personal management by an internal team (in Analog‟s a role for an outside facilitator in
styles and agendas. case, the Corporate QIP Council). guiding the process, but ownership
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
20
M E A S U R E M E N T , T H E B R I D G E B E T W E E N T H E H A R D A N D S O F T S I D E S
of the conclusions must lie with the measurement of process and
team driving the change. organizational learning and how S. Kaplan, "Companies as Laboratories' " The
Relevance of a Decade, Paula Barker Duffy
measurement of the first, using the (ed.) (Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
The Trap half-life method can encourage 1994): 179-182.
5 Schneiderman, "Setting Quality Goals."
Returning to the research done by changes in individual behavior. Can 6 Arthur M. Schneiderman, "Are there Limits to
Sterman, Repenning, and Kofman, traditional concepts be used to Total Quality Management?" Strategy &
Business (Issue 11, Second Quarter 1998): 35-
their work demonstrated that the prove that the half-life metric is 45.
longer improvement half-lives for directly related to learning? No, it 7 Schneiderman, "Metrics for the Order Ful-
must be justified using fuzzy logic. fillment Process:' (Part 2, Exhibit 3).
the more complex revenue- 8 Schneiderman, "Are there Limits to Total
generating processes (e.g. product The second deals with a complex Quality Management?"
situation in which our traditional 9 Ray Stata, "Organizational Learning-The Key
development and sales), coupled to Management Innovation," Sloan
with severe downturn in the recourse is to opinion rather than Management Review (Spring 1989 63-74).
fact. In these situations, data can be 10 Schneiderman, "Metrics for the Order
semiconductor business cycle, Fulfillment Process:' (Part 2, Exhibit 3).
meant that productivity increased collected and analyzed, but because 11 Hitoshi Kume, Statistical Methods for
most of it is in the form of Quality Improvement (The Association for
much faster than volume. Overseas Technical Scholarship (AOTS)
With immense pressure created language, fuzzy analysis is required. 1985).
by a dangerously low stock price Fortunately, tools exist for this 12 Sterman, J., N. Repenning, and F. Kofman
"Unanticipated Side Effects of Successful
(felt throughout the industry) and analysis, although they are not Quality Programs: Exploring a Paradox of
the resulting high labor variances widely understood. These tools Organizational Improvement," Management
Science.
caused by successful productivity include the seven management and 13 Jay W. Forrester, "Industrial Dynamics: A
improvement, Analog succumbed planning tools17 and simulation Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers,"
modeling. Harvard Business Review (July-August,
and had its first ever company-wide 1958).
layoff. This triggered the age-old Finally, my last visit to Milliken 14 Jiro Kawakita, The Original KJ Method
& Company was as a guest at an in- (Kawakita Institute, Tokyo).
fear that improvement leads to job 15 Shoji Shiba, Alan Graham, and David
loss. We fell right into the trap that house training course. I noticed that Walden, A New American TQM (Cambridge
there were a lot more courses and a MA: Productivity Press, 1993).
Deming foresaw and created fear in 16 W. Edwards Deming, Out of Crisis (MIT
lot more talk about the hard stuff. Center for Advanced Engineering Study,
the workplace and a subsequent
At dinner, I asked Tom Malone 1982).
suspension of effective improve- 17 See for example, Michael Brassard, The
(Milliken‟s president) whether they
ment activities.16 Memory jogger Plus+ (Methuen, MA:
What should we have done? The were becoming hard-siders. His GOAL/QPC, 1989).
model suggests that a greater focus answer:
on improvement of revenue
generating processes could have “Well, „the hard stuff is easy, the
grown volume to fully utilize a soft stuff is hard,‟ but the hard
more productive workforce. It also stuff‟s important, too.” :
Reprinted from
Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement, April/May 1998,
suggested that Analog might have Volume 2, Number 2
been too aggressive in cutting Notes
prices, which exacerbated the
situation. Their findings are not
without controversy within Analog. 1 Arthur M. Schneiderman, "Setting Quality
Goals," Quality Progress (April 1988): 51-57.
2 Analog Devices is a mid-sized semiconductor
CONCLUSION manufacturer.
3 Arthur M. Schneiderman, "Metrics for the
This article has addressed two Order Fulfillment Process," Journal of Cost
related issues that reside in the Management (Part 1: Summer 1996): 30-42,
(Part 2: Fall 1996): 6-17.
space we have created for ourselves 4 Robert S. Kaplan, Analog Devices: The Half-
between the hard stuff and the soft Life System (Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School, 1989) Case #9-190-061; and Robert
stuff. The first deals with the
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
APRIL/MAY 1998
21